Speaker Pelosi just fired back at "MR. REPUBLICAN TALKING POINTS" reporter RE: whistleblower

[Miles Archer]

Don't know the reporter's identity. He asked why the rights of the whistleblower take precedent over "President's right to confront his accuser."

You're going to have to see the clip...I'm not a stenographer, but she said "I'll say this to YOU, Mr. Republican Talking Points, but when you discuss the whistleblower, you enter MY wheelhouse..."

Too much going on for me to capture it here but she is clear and focused with not even a trace of ambiguity.

[brucefan]

1. It was someone from

The Sinclair network.

[Miles Archer]

3. Thanks...I'm working on something, heard it but wasn't paying close attention. n/t

[TheRealNorth]

9. That would explain the repeating of GOP talking points

Last edited Thu Nov 14, 2019, 03:09 PM - Edit history (2)

Sinclair is like Faux Jr. I remember them putting on pro-Iraq war pieces by goons like Mark Hyman and Sebastian Gorka onto local news.

Later, they tried giving the same Republican talking point scripts to the local news anchors to read. I remember there being a mash-up a couple of years back of Sinclair News Anchors across the country reading off the exact same GOP talking point. I think the while scheme was exposed by a Seattle-area news anchor that resigned instead of towing the company line.

[Midnight Writer]

23. Sinclair fired our local weatherman for refusing to read an on-air script they sent him.

[Miles Archer]

4. Here's the video:

Link to tweet

[lunatica]

5. Thank you!

She cuts right through the shit doesn’t she!

[Miles Archer]

6. She did it throughout the entire presser...clear and unambiguous. n/t

[LiberalFighter]

20. I saw her on Stephen Colbert last week and she was great.

[triron]

7. I sense Nancy is a bit outraged at the reporter.

[bdamomma]

29. boy this is second thread

that Speaker Pelosi is not taking any crap from reporters. Good for her, educate them Ms. Pelosi!!!

[malaise]

8. Keep those boots on his neck Speaker Nancy

Bam Bam - what a bam bam - ITTMF RFN!

[coeur_de_lion]

37. Nancy telling it

Love her to death.

[2naSalit]

10. She is, by far

the very best we could possibly have as our Congressional leader at this time. She will be a figure in history books from now on. Not that she hasn't deserved recognition prior, she certainly does, but this will probably be the first point made about her legacy.

And I am very thankful for her service to our country!

[winstars]

16. Remember the lively discussion here about if Nancy was too old for the job. Sounds crazy now!

[2naSalit]

18. Yes I do remember...

and I was not one of those making such an argument at any time. I have had complete confidence in her since she has been present for the writing and passing of all legislation for decades. If there's a way to get something accomplished, she knows how to get it done with little to no blowback.

Her expertise is amazing and I am thankful she uses it in the way(s) that she does.

[True Blue American]

17. Tip O'Neil

Would be proud!

[Blue_true]

39. It is safe to say that she will go down into history as the greatest Speaker of the House.

Her past body of work already has her among the greats, her current works will likely elevate her to the greatest.

[2naSalit]

40. Without a doubt....nt

[cbdo2007]

12. Why do they think anyone has a right to "confront their accuser"??

There are multiple other named people corroborating the whistleblower's story and saying it is true so he should just assume one of them is the whistleblower and treat them accordingly.

[Miles Archer]

14. He does have the right if / when charges are actually made.

He does not have the right during the hearings.

It's not a "presidential" right..it's a right to anyone who has charges brought against them.

I don't know for sure if this is at the end of the House hearings, or if it's when it goes to the Senate, and they vote for removal.

[2naSalit]

19. He is allowed to

participate in the Senate trial as it is an actual trial at that point. You are correct, his turn comes when the trial begins, it has ever been thus.

[LiberalFighter]

22. 538 seem to try to justify it was wrong for President not have rights during impeachment.

The writers were clueless.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

25. It's a right during trial, but not investigations or grand juries. . . . nt

[SergeStorms]

26. At this point......

Trump's accuser is the House of Representatives. A whistle-blower provides a tip that something might be amiss. It's then taken under consideration by an Inspector General. If the IG deems it a credible offense then it's referred to the House of Representatives for consideration.

Trump's - and his toadies' - complaint about being able to confront his accuser would be better served taking on the Inspector General. The IG is the person who deemed Trump's actions as possibly anti-Constitutional or illegal. The whistle-blower hasn't accused Trump of anything. He/she has only provided a tip that something might be unusually suspect.

[stopbush]

28. Exactly. The Rs want to make it about a single person who they can turn into a target

for their attempts at character assassination.

[SergeStorms]

32. That's what they're good at.

Democracy......not so much.

[Grey]

36. I think the rest of the sentence is

"In a court of law." Not in the press, which is where they want to try and convict. Don't you love it when they pick a bit of this and a bit of that and try to make it sound important?

[cbdo2007]

13. Maybe their response should be "How do you know you haven't already talked to the whistleblower??"

If we start leading them in the directly that the whistleblower may be someone we already know about and who may or may not already be testifying, that will really start making them sweat.

[2naSalit]

21. +1

I have been wondering if we have already heard or soon will hear testimony from the WB during the hearings.

[PatSeg]

15. Finally, Democrats have stopped

the endless apologizing that we've seen for years. They are being assertive and confident, as the facts and principles are on their side. The years of republicans gaslighting Democrats and keeping them on the defensive is over.

[Miles Archer]

31. There are quotes and clips all over Twitter today from her...

...they are direct, they don't mince words, and they're brutal.

You're right...no one's apologizing. She IS stating that this isn't a happy time for Congress, or America, but Trump led us to this point, and it is the duty of Congress to deal with it.

[PatSeg]

34. Good for her

She is the perfect person for this role at this time.

[Miles Archer]

35. Sometimes we choose history, sometimes history chooses us...

...I'm sure she would have preferred to serve as Speaker, without this cloud hanging over us. She had no choice, and she stepped up. That's how her history will be written.

[PatSeg]

41. That is so true

of many iconic leaders. Fortunately there are people like Pelosi who will step up when needed.

[czarjak]

24. How'd that cow eat that cabbage, rubes?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

27. K&R!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[crickets]

30. K&R!

[Nevilledog]

33. It really is no different than someone calling in a tip into Silent Witness.

Many cases I dealt with started from info given to Silent Witness. This info would give police an avenue to start an investigation. If they were able to independently corroborate the info, a person would end up being charged. The info from the Silent Witness would not be presented as evidence because the person giving it was unidentified and not subject to cross-examination. The case would be predicated on evidence gathered during the investigating, negating any relevance of the initial tip.

Another somewhat analogous situation is the procedures surrounding search warrants. Very common in drug investigations are search warrant applications that include tips from CCs (concerned citizens). Say I witness a bunch of very short term visitors coming to a neighbor's house. Cars pulling up, staying for a couple minutes, and then leaving. I see so much of this I start suspecting my neighbor is dealing drugs. I call the police and fill them in about my observations. At the same time, two other neighbors call and give the same info. Police start to investigate and find out that the owner of the house has prior drug convictions. This would raise red flags and police would dig into their informant files to see if this person's name is coming up and in what context.

This information would be included in an affidavit supporting an application for a search warrant. Cops serve the warrant and find drugs. It's the seizure of those drugs that form the basis for charges. Information included in the warrant is not presented during trial because, again, the people giving the info are not subject to cross-examination. The person on trial cannot be convicted on the info in the affidavit. It becomes irrelevant to the trial process.

I liken the whistleblower to be no different than a Silent Witness tipster, except the whistleblower in this situation is inherently more reliable due to their position.

[trof]

38. I wish she could be president. GO NAN!